EVERYONE JOIN THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY - Like a cross between Christianity and Jedi - and John Travolta is a high preist - - no.. seriously he is.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>The fact that Jesus does not exist is not the official opinion of this forum and is yet to be proven by any other form of evidence other than the fact a guy who could turn water into wine surely would have started a brewery...</span>
EVERYONE JOIN THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY - Like a cross between Christianity and Jedi - and John Travolta is a high preist - - no.. seriously he is.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>The fact that Jesus does not exist is not the official opinion of this forum and is yet to be proven by any other form of evidence other than the fact a guy who could turn water into wine surely would have started a brewery...</span> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think everyone here agreed that Jesus did exist.
I would very much disagree with joining the church of scientology. As I believe jesus was a con artist, as are these, they will (i have first hand knowledge) try to manipulate you and in a way brainwash you.
In response to Wheeee and like lolfighter said I have very little doubt that by the time he was crusified, hes lies and deciet had gone on for so long that he himself believed he was the son of god, therefore going to his death actually believing he was doing it for us.
I sort of agree with you guys- the problem with this view is thast you're making out "jesus" to be an actual living person. Like most legendry figures, it is unlikely that the tales of Jesus derrived only from one man. Equally, as primary and secondry sources all point towards miracles, i truly doubt their reliability in the historical respect. It is, however very likely that there were some radical and dangerous thinkers around at this time. Today however we'd call them terrorists rather than the sons of God. Hence, to all intents and pursposes - refering to a "Jesus" is simply incorrect.
In reguards to the Church of Scientology - I was bored and went to one of their promotional recruitment things..... guys - it is something u really need to experience first hand! Especially when they try to measure your soul by linking electrodes to your fingers. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited October 2004
Given how most forumites in this thread (quite rightly) consider daily news reports from various organisations potentially suspect in their objectivity, I find it amusing that the same forumites are willing to take a repeatedly translated tract by multiple authors that is over 1500 years old to be a reliable source of information.
As my GF and I concluded during a recent discussion:
<span style='font-family:Optima'><span style='color:yellow'><b><i>If I can go out and find a vase from the Ming Dynasty, why is it that no one has bothered to preserve so much as a sideboard or shelf that was allegedly made by the son of god?</i></b></span></span>
There are only two conclusions I can come to:
a) God is shite at woodwork.
b) Rumours of a messiah's existance may be somewhat exaggerated.
And I'm sorry, but we are meant to swallow the concept that an omnipotent, omniscient being not only cares for us and cares that we worship him (I'd have thought that being omnipotent and omniscient would be a cure for insecurity), but will also send us to hell for not doing it? Or would indeed put a small child through starvation, rape, war and disease as some kind of test of moral fibre?
Preacha please. You are going to die. When you do your brain activity will cease. Within 1000 years, there will almost definitely be no one who remembers you or a trace of your existance. Supporting heirarchical institutions who believe in magic isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
I mean no disrespect to any members of the boards. But I have no respect for your beliefs.
I mean no disrespect to any members of the boards. But I have no respect for your beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So you mean no disrespect by your lack of respect?
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
I defend your right to have those beliefs. I don't have any lack of respect for the Christian posters, such as Quanaut et al. who hold them. I just don't respect their beliefs with regards to religion.
Equally, I doubt they'd respect many of my beliefs. I just thought I'd make the point clear that it was an attack on their beliefs, not them. Sometimes people get the two confused, especially when it comes to religion.
He does not disrespect the members of the board, only their beliefs. You are not your belief, no matter how much you define yourself through it. I still find it questionably not to respect somebody's belief. I think everyone is entitled to their beliefs, not to be confused with being entitled to act upon them. If I believe that everybody should be killed in the most gruesome manner possible, nobody can prevent from thinking so. I'm just not allowed to make my deeds reflect that belief.
Grendel, if you do not respect my beliefs, what's to stop you from trying to pass laws against them? All I'm asking is for your respect (just a little bit). Nothing more, nothing less. Without respecting each other's opinions and beliefs, no discussion is possible.
(Sorry for being off the topic.)
As for woodwork from the son of God: The ming dynasty existed from 1368 to 1644 A.D. while Jesus existed from (roughly) 0-33 A.D. Not only is the ming dynasty much younger than Jesus (and thus more of it is preserved), it also existed far longer (thus having more time to create things to preserve) and was far more industrious (we're comparing the work of the entire chinese people to the work of a single man). Try finding a vase from the Han dynasty (Western or Former Han, 206 B.C. to 9 A.D. and Eastern or Latter Han, 25 to 220 A.D.) and it already becomes much harder - and we're still talking about much more time and many more people. We're talking the work of a man who probably didn't not to out-of-the-ordinary carpentry work, who was outlawed in his time among his peers, and who only lived for 33 years, the last three of which he probably did no carpentry, the vagabond. Not having a piece of woodwork made by him is no proof that he never existed, only an indication. And if you want to argue science vs. religion, you need proof if you want to trump belief.
I'll second that with another analogy. Consider this - Jesus was not known for being a carpenter -- Just as John Kerry was not known for being a war hero.
As difficult as it is to find evidence of heroism for John Kerry, so much more difficult as it is to find carpenter work for Jesus.
Now if you want to find evidence of John Kerry's political career - it becomes a quite a bit easier - because that is what he "does".
The same for Jesus and his ministry. Being a carpenter was not the focus of his life - just as being a war hero is not the focus of Kerry's life.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Oct 21 2004, 09:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Oct 21 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Grendel, if you do not respect my beliefs, what's to stop you from trying to pass laws against them? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sanity?
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Oct 21 2004, 09:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Oct 21 2004, 09:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I defend your right to have those beliefs. I don't have any lack of respect for the Christian posters, such as Quanaut et al. who hold them. I just don't respect their beliefs with regards to religion.
Equally, I doubt they'd respect many of my beliefs. I just thought I'd make the point clear that it was an attack on their beliefs, not them. Sometimes people get the two confused, especially when it comes to religion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then we are in disagreement. I do not believe that you can separate a person from their beliefs.
You argue that we are nothing more than the sum of our physical being. What is a person then? Just a collection of single celled organisms working together? If that were the case then what is to seperate one person from another? Nothing. Yet what makes you respect one person while revile another? Whom do you call your friends or respected contacts? Does anything seperate them from a murder,thief,liar?
It is their character that has been built upon their core beliefs. It is their beliefs that form the steady base for what makes them respectable and honorable human beings. It doesn't matter if those beliefs stem from Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Good Parenting, or any number of other methods. Yet by saying that you disrespect those core beliefs you are in essence attacking and disrespecting the values that make that person who they are.
In this world I have nothing but my name. It started as a blank slate. My beliefs that I should be honorable, trustworthy, and respectful were what helped me build upon my name which defines me as a person today. My beliefs are all that I truly am and when they are attacked it is an attack on me.
I would rather not be respected at all than treated as if the core of what defines my character is something to be reviled.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Oct 21 2004, 10:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Oct 21 2004, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Oct 21 2004, 09:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Oct 21 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Grendel, if you do not respect my beliefs, what's to stop you from trying to pass laws against them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sanity? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> that's a lot to ask from someone who doesn't respect anyone's beliefs but their own, and who proclaims not to have any set of morality.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dukem+Oct 21 2004, 07:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dukem @ Oct 21 2004, 07:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I sort of agree with you guys- the problem with this view is thast you're making out "jesus" to be an actual living person. Like most legendry figures, it is unlikely that the tales of Jesus derrived only from one man. Equally, as primary and secondry sources all point towards miracles, i truly doubt their reliability in the historical respect. It is, however very likely that there were some radical and dangerous thinkers around at this time. Today however we'd call them terrorists rather than the sons of God. Hence, to all intents and pursposes - refering to a "Jesus" is simply incorrect.
In reguards to the Church of Scientology - I was bored and went to one of their promotional recruitment things..... guys - it is something u really need to experience first hand! Especially when they try to measure your soul by linking electrodes to your fingers. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You obviously aren't aware that practically every writer of the new testimate died for thier belife in Jesus, and that every writer of the new testimate that hadn't personally known Jesus had spoken to and lived with people who did. One might discount the records of Jesus' early miracles as heresay, I mean after all, many of them were preformed before most of his deciples were even following him and many were written by second soursers that probably overblew the facts at least a little bit. But you will be hard pressed to find a respected historian in this day in age, athiest or otherwize, that will seriously argue against the death and resurection of Jesus (or at least something that looked alot like the real thing) as historical fact, let alone argue that he simply didn't exist. You might as well argue that Rome was a mithical kingdom that never was really there.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 22 2004, 03:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 22 2004, 03:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But you will be hard pressed to find a respected historian in this day in age, athiest or otherwize, that will seriously argue against the death and resurection of Jesus (or at least something that looked alot like the real thing) as historical fact, let alone argue that he simply didn't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You would be hard pressed to find a respected historian in this day and age, athiest or otherwise, that will seriously argue against the <i>death</i> of Jesus. I don't think it would be that difficult to find historians that would argue against his <i>resurrection</i>.
I suppose I should use this space to say I remember hearing about three different concepts of Jesus within theology. One is called Jesus Christ, dealing with miraculous elements, one called the historical Jesus, and something similar to that. Or at least <i>i think</i>. Google brings up nothing. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Oct 21 2004, 11:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Oct 21 2004, 11:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That doesn't make him insane. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i don't think it's possible to define sanity without referencing morality or the respect of others' beliefs, and also define it in such a way to exclude a strong possibility of trouncing on other peoples' civil liberties.
<!--QuoteBegin-(e)kent+Oct 22 2004, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((e)kent @ Oct 22 2004, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 22 2004, 03:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 22 2004, 03:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But you will be hard pressed to find a respected historian in this day in age, athiest or otherwize, that will seriously argue against the death and resurection of Jesus (or at least something that looked alot like the real thing) as historical fact, let alone argue that he simply didn't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You would be hard pressed to find a respected historian in this day and age, athiest or otherwise, that will seriously argue against the <i>death</i> of Jesus. I don't think it would be that difficult to find historians that would argue against his <i>resurrection</i>.
I suppose I should use this space to say I remember hearing about three different concepts of Jesus within theology. One is called Jesus Christ, dealing with miraculous elements, one called the historical Jesus, and something similar to that. Or at least <i>i think</i>. Google brings up nothing. Does this sound familiar to anyone? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya, I meant to say that no historian will claim that Jesus just stayed in the tomb and that was that, nearly all historians will state that either Jesus was killed and his body was stolen, or someone who looked like Jesus was killed and then the real Jesus popped back up. The view that someone who was belived to be Jesus died, and there was some type of ressurection scandal three days later is pretty much historically indoctrined fact.
The most fascinating part about Christianity is that it is based on having a personal relationship with a god or deity, something simply rediculous as far as ordinary religion goes.
When I say Christianity, I do not mean Cathlocism. The Catholic religion is an example of religion in the stereotype of "controlling the masses."
Therefore, I completely grasp the idea of why people turn to Christianity and why it is so compelling and powerful. Jesus is the glue that holds the idea together; the man that bridged the gap between a perfect and unyielding god and a race of imperfect sinners with his perfection, humanity, and unconditional love, all backed up by a book that paints a realistic and mythological picture of the real world.
It's by far the most powerful and most threatening religion ever creating, particularly to a state. Think about the idea of having personal access to the most powerful being in the universe <i>because he loves you as you are</i>. That's the idea of Jesus. The Catholics got it wrong because they tried to control people's relationship with "God" or "Jesus."
I just thought I'd help clarify that. I'm not a believer either, and I'm not really here to debate whether Jesus was a con artist or not. Even if he was, he started the most free and loving belief system to ever exist. Ask any "born again" Christian, and the more mature the Christian, the more they simply talk about a loving relationship.
I may not follow it, but I sure as hell respect it way more than any other religion or system around.
If you have read the DaVinci Code, the story's historical and religious refrences creates a lot of controversy. I'm not going to cite all of the things that were in the book, but I will say that it brings up some interesting ideas.
I'm not sure what I believe to be honest. I want to believe that there is a higher being that is constantly watching over us. On the other hand, the bible, to me, appears to be a story with a bad plot and shallow characters,
It's not logical to believe in God/religion. Period.
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 20 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 20 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> well, you're free to believe that if you wish. However, considering that you do, I have little hope that you'd be willing to change your mind. As such, I don't really wish to waste my time here.
If, on the other hand, you really are interested in it, I suggest you go read a Bible (preferably NIV or ESV, as they are translated so that there aren't inordinately denominational biases in the translations). I think you will discover that Jesus was not a con-artist, and that to think of him as one would be rather ridiculous. It's just not possible that someone would go willingly to their death for a laugh, if they were sane. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, Jesus/God exists because the bible says so! And the bible says it's the word of God so it must be true!
Don't EVER use the bible as a reliable source of evidence FOR religion. Ever.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 24 2004, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 24 2004, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's not logical to believe in God/religion. Period.
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yet somehow millions and millions of highly educated people, include endoctorated historians, and physicists, and a plethora of other scientific fields, covering every scientific field, exist as productive members of the scientific comunity just as prominently as every other religious affiliation, including athiesm. Many Christians don't argue with any aspect of science what so ever. Infact this whole God/Science mentality that Christains have been painted with is absolutly counter biblical, and is entirely a product of lazy people wanting to belive that the bible is a comprehensive textbook on how people should live every moment of thier life, thus preventing them from having to think about any issues.
Granted the belive that scientifically unexplainable things can happen seems illogical, but realisticly, what do we know for sure about the nature of our world outside the physical? If nothing else it should be scientifically clear that there is alot of empty space out there that we can't prove or disprove is filled with anything, we really haven't even mapped the brain to any small extent. Combined with the fact that most people have, in thier lifetime, seen at least one thing that can be considered scientifically unexplainable, or probablistically impossible. These statements make more scientific sence then one might guess.
I challenge you to get make a textbook on science with no less then 50 authors, and the conditions in place that none of them is allowed to talk to eachother they may only read what the others have written before them, and not modify it. Oh, and add to that at least half of the book must be translated through two different languages, and the other half through one. If your final book contains even five times the contridictions and inaccuracies that the bible does I will congradulate your point as possible fact, but to me, what the bible hasn't accomplished is inconsequential, what it HAS accomplished is absolutly amazing.
[edit] That isn't even close to what wheee was saying in his second post, I can probably find some things that can make you look like an idiot, translated the right way, in you're posts, would you like me to do that?
Ammendment: For future referance, confidence and retoric are not going to solve this type of an issue one way or another, so I'd suggest, just for the sake of argument, that we don't attempt to post religious statements that are true only to our set of pressuppositions. If you want to provide evidence for a belife or elsewize go right ahead, but the last time I checked this topic wasn't "I am a christian, all athiests are morons" or vice versa, so please don't make statements like above unless you intend to back it with alot of evidence in the same post. As far as I'm concerned it might as well be spam.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A nice open mind you've got there Nadagast.
Tell you what chief. Find one said inaccuracy, and I'll bow down in front of my computer and call you god almighty.
btw, science can't be "right." science is based on statistics, not probability.
let's not get this into a science vs. religion debate. it always turns out to be one, but why do people still not realize that you *cannot* pit science against religion? they are two fundamentally different things that answer fundamentally different questions, so don't try it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr_133t+Oct 24 2004, 11:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr_133t @ Oct 24 2004, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 24 2004, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 24 2004, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but to me, what the bible hasn't accomplished is inconsequential, what it HAS accomplished is absolutly amazing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nah it aint really all that amazing, because the bible uses such a vague language, that it can get away with saying the large volume of stuff that it has without having the risk of it being proven scientifically untrue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It really doesn't use that much vauge language, you just get the impression it does because we always have to counter statements made by people reading it literally, with no regard to genre, meaning, compleatism, writing style, and intended audiance.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Oct 21 2004, 04:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Oct 21 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Oct 21 2004, 10:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Oct 21 2004, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Oct 21 2004, 09:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Oct 21 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Grendel, if you do not respect my beliefs, what's to stop you from trying to pass laws against them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sanity? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> that's a lot to ask from someone who doesn't respect anyone's beliefs but their own, and who proclaims not to have any set of morality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> (sorry to go off topic) As far as I know , little to none of the fundamentalist christians respect atheist beliefs , and thoses in power actually pass laws against them !
Remember the christian adage "love the people , hate the sin" ? Ever thought it could be used against christian beliefs as well ? That's exactly what Grendel meant. He has nothing against you , he just hates the christian ideas you're hosting in your brains. As do I. Look how much your beliefs distorted your thought processes already...
Comments
EVERYONE JOIN THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY - Like a cross between Christianity and Jedi - and John Travolta is a high preist - - no.. seriously he is.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>The fact that Jesus does not exist is not the official opinion of this forum and is yet to be proven by any other form of evidence other than the fact a guy who could turn water into wine surely would have started a brewery...</span>
EVERYONE JOIN THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY - Like a cross between Christianity and Jedi - and John Travolta is a high preist - - no.. seriously he is.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>The fact that Jesus does not exist is not the official opinion of this forum and is yet to be proven by any other form of evidence other than the fact a guy who could turn water into wine surely would have started a brewery...</span> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think everyone here agreed that Jesus did exist.
I would very much disagree with joining the church of scientology. As I believe jesus was a con artist, as are these, they will (i have first hand knowledge) try to manipulate you and in a way brainwash you.
In response to Wheeee and like lolfighter said I have very little doubt that by the time he was crusified, hes lies and deciet had gone on for so long that he himself believed he was the son of god, therefore going to his death actually believing he was doing it for us.
In reguards to the Church of Scientology - I was bored and went to one of their promotional recruitment things..... guys - it is something u really need to experience first hand! Especially when they try to measure your soul by linking electrodes to your fingers. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As my GF and I concluded during a recent discussion:
<span style='font-family:Optima'><span style='color:yellow'><b><i>If I can go out and find a vase from the Ming Dynasty, why is it that no one has bothered to preserve so much as a sideboard or shelf that was allegedly made by the son of god?</i></b></span></span>
There are only two conclusions I can come to:
a) God is shite at woodwork.
b) Rumours of a messiah's existance may be somewhat exaggerated.
And I'm sorry, but we are meant to swallow the concept that an omnipotent, omniscient being not only cares for us and cares that we worship him (I'd have thought that being omnipotent and omniscient would be a cure for insecurity), but will also send us to hell for not doing it? Or would indeed put a small child through starvation, rape, war and disease as some kind of test of moral fibre?
Preacha please. You are going to die. When you do your brain activity will cease. Within 1000 years, there will almost definitely be no one who remembers you or a trace of your existance. Supporting heirarchical institutions who believe in magic isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
I mean no disrespect to any members of the boards. But I have no respect for your beliefs.
I mean no disrespect to any members of the boards. But I have no respect for your beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you mean no disrespect by your lack of respect?
Equally, I doubt they'd respect many of my beliefs. I just thought I'd make the point clear that it was an attack on their beliefs, not them. Sometimes people get the two confused, especially when it comes to religion.
Grendel, if you do not respect my beliefs, what's to stop you from trying to pass laws against them? All I'm asking is for your respect (just a little bit). Nothing more, nothing less. Without respecting each other's opinions and beliefs, no discussion is possible.
(Sorry for being off the topic.)
As for woodwork from the son of God: The ming dynasty existed from 1368 to 1644 A.D. while Jesus existed from (roughly) 0-33 A.D. Not only is the ming dynasty much younger than Jesus (and thus more of it is preserved), it also existed far longer (thus having more time to create things to preserve) and was far more industrious (we're comparing the work of the entire chinese people to the work of a single man). Try finding a vase from the Han dynasty (Western or Former Han, 206 B.C. to 9 A.D. and Eastern or Latter Han, 25 to 220 A.D.) and it already becomes much harder - and we're still talking about much more time and many more people. We're talking the work of a man who probably didn't not to out-of-the-ordinary carpentry work, who was outlawed in his time among his peers, and who only lived for 33 years, the last three of which he probably did no carpentry, the vagabond. Not having a piece of woodwork made by him is no proof that he never existed, only an indication. And if you want to argue science vs. religion, you need proof if you want to trump belief.
Basically, that is an argument from absurdity.
I'll second that with another analogy.
Consider this - Jesus was not known for being a carpenter -- Just as John Kerry was not known for being a war hero.
As difficult as it is to find evidence of heroism for John Kerry, so much more difficult as it is to find carpenter work for Jesus.
Now if you want to find evidence of John Kerry's political career - it becomes a quite a bit easier - because that is what he "does".
The same for Jesus and his ministry. Being a carpenter was not the focus of his life - just as being a war hero is not the focus of Kerry's life.
Sanity?
Equally, I doubt they'd respect many of my beliefs. I just thought I'd make the point clear that it was an attack on their beliefs, not them. Sometimes people get the two confused, especially when it comes to religion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then we are in disagreement. I do not believe that you can separate a person from their beliefs.
You argue that we are nothing more than the sum of our physical being. What is a person then? Just a collection of single celled organisms working together? If that were the case then what is to seperate one person from another? Nothing. Yet what makes you respect one person while revile another? Whom do you call your friends or respected contacts? Does anything seperate them from a murder,thief,liar?
It is their character that has been built upon their core beliefs. It is their beliefs that form the steady base for what makes them respectable and honorable human beings. It doesn't matter if those beliefs stem from Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Good Parenting, or any number of other methods. Yet by saying that you disrespect those core beliefs you are in essence attacking and disrespecting the values that make that person who they are.
In this world I have nothing but my name. It started as a blank slate. My beliefs that I should be honorable, trustworthy, and respectful were what helped me build upon my name which defines me as a person today. My beliefs are all that I truly am and when they are attacked it is an attack on me.
I would rather not be respected at all than treated as if the core of what defines my character is something to be reviled.
Disagree but do not disrespect.
Sanity? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's a lot to ask from someone who doesn't respect anyone's beliefs but their own, and who proclaims not to have any set of morality.
In reguards to the Church of Scientology - I was bored and went to one of their promotional recruitment things..... guys - it is something u really need to experience first hand! Especially when they try to measure your soul by linking electrodes to your fingers. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You obviously aren't aware that practically every writer of the new testimate died for thier belife in Jesus, and that every writer of the new testimate that hadn't personally known Jesus had spoken to and lived with people who did. One might discount the records of Jesus' early miracles as heresay, I mean after all, many of them were preformed before most of his deciples were even following him and many were written by second soursers that probably overblew the facts at least a little bit. But you will be hard pressed to find a respected historian in this day in age, athiest or otherwize, that will seriously argue against the death and resurection of Jesus (or at least something that looked alot like the real thing) as historical fact, let alone argue that he simply didn't exist. You might as well argue that Rome was a mithical kingdom that never was really there.
You would be hard pressed to find a respected historian in this day and age, athiest or otherwise, that will seriously argue against the <i>death</i> of Jesus. I don't think it would be that difficult to find historians that would argue against his <i>resurrection</i>.
I suppose I should use this space to say I remember hearing about three different concepts of Jesus within theology. One is called Jesus Christ, dealing with miraculous elements, one called the historical Jesus, and something similar to that. Or at least <i>i think</i>. Google brings up nothing. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
i don't think it's possible to define sanity without referencing morality or the respect of others' beliefs, and also define it in such a way to exclude a strong possibility of trouncing on other peoples' civil liberties.
You would be hard pressed to find a respected historian in this day and age, athiest or otherwise, that will seriously argue against the <i>death</i> of Jesus. I don't think it would be that difficult to find historians that would argue against his <i>resurrection</i>.
I suppose I should use this space to say I remember hearing about three different concepts of Jesus within theology. One is called Jesus Christ, dealing with miraculous elements, one called the historical Jesus, and something similar to that. Or at least <i>i think</i>. Google brings up nothing. Does this sound familiar to anyone? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya, I meant to say that no historian will claim that Jesus just stayed in the tomb and that was that, nearly all historians will state that either Jesus was killed and his body was stolen, or someone who looked like Jesus was killed and then the real Jesus popped back up. The view that someone who was belived to be Jesus died, and there was some type of ressurection scandal three days later is pretty much historically indoctrined fact.
When I say Christianity, I do not mean Cathlocism. The Catholic religion is an example of religion in the stereotype of "controlling the masses."
Therefore, I completely grasp the idea of why people turn to Christianity and why it is so compelling and powerful. Jesus is the glue that holds the idea together; the man that bridged the gap between a perfect and unyielding god and a race of imperfect sinners with his perfection, humanity, and unconditional love, all backed up by a book that paints a realistic and mythological picture of the real world.
It's by far the most powerful and most threatening religion ever creating, particularly to a state. Think about the idea of having personal access to the most powerful being in the universe <i>because he loves you as you are</i>. That's the idea of Jesus. The Catholics got it wrong because they tried to control people's relationship with "God" or "Jesus."
I just thought I'd help clarify that. I'm not a believer either, and I'm not really here to debate whether Jesus was a con artist or not. Even if he was, he started the most free and loving belief system to ever exist. Ask any "born again" Christian, and the more mature the Christian, the more they simply talk about a loving relationship.
I may not follow it, but I sure as hell respect it way more than any other religion or system around.
I'm not sure what I believe to be honest. I want to believe that there is a higher being that is constantly watching over us. On the other hand, the bible, to me, appears to be a story with a bad plot and shallow characters,
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God.
If, on the other hand, you really are interested in it, I suggest you go read a Bible (preferably NIV or ESV, as they are translated so that there aren't inordinately denominational biases in the translations). I think you will discover that Jesus was not a con-artist, and that to think of him as one would be rather ridiculous. It's just not possible that someone would go willingly to their death for a laugh, if they were sane. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, Jesus/God exists because the bible says so! And the bible says it's the word of God so it must be true!
Don't EVER use the bible as a reliable source of evidence FOR religion. Ever.
Circular logic at it's worst...
*Anyone* with an open mind, when exposed to the truth, will discover that there are so many reasons why science is right, and basically none for religion. The bible is a detriment to religion imo. It contains so many inaccuracies, you'd have to be a fool to consider it the book of God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet somehow millions and millions of highly educated people, include endoctorated historians, and physicists, and a plethora of other scientific fields, covering every scientific field, exist as productive members of the scientific comunity just as prominently as every other religious affiliation, including athiesm. Many Christians don't argue with any aspect of science what so ever. Infact this whole God/Science mentality that Christains have been painted with is absolutly counter biblical, and is entirely a product of lazy people wanting to belive that the bible is a comprehensive textbook on how people should live every moment of thier life, thus preventing them from having to think about any issues.
Granted the belive that scientifically unexplainable things can happen seems illogical, but realisticly, what do we know for sure about the nature of our world outside the physical? If nothing else it should be scientifically clear that there is alot of empty space out there that we can't prove or disprove is filled with anything, we really haven't even mapped the brain to any small extent. Combined with the fact that most people have, in thier lifetime, seen at least one thing that can be considered scientifically unexplainable, or probablistically impossible. These statements make more scientific sence then one might guess.
I challenge you to get make a textbook on science with no less then 50 authors, and the conditions in place that none of them is allowed to talk to eachother they may only read what the others have written before them, and not modify it. Oh, and add to that at least half of the book must be translated through two different languages, and the other half through one. If your final book contains even five times the contridictions and inaccuracies that the bible does I will congradulate your point as possible fact, but to me, what the bible hasn't accomplished is inconsequential, what it HAS accomplished is absolutly amazing.
[edit] That isn't even close to what wheee was saying in his second post, I can probably find some things that can make you look like an idiot, translated the right way, in you're posts, would you like me to do that?
Ammendment: For future referance, confidence and retoric are not going to solve this type of an issue one way or another, so I'd suggest, just for the sake of argument, that we don't attempt to post religious statements that are true only to our set of pressuppositions. If you want to provide evidence for a belife or elsewize go right ahead, but the last time I checked this topic wasn't "I am a christian, all athiests are morons" or vice versa, so please don't make statements like above unless you intend to back it with alot of evidence in the same post. As far as I'm concerned it might as well be spam.
A nice open mind you've got there Nadagast.
Tell you what chief. Find one said inaccuracy, and I'll bow down in front of my computer and call you god almighty.
let's not get this into a science vs. religion debate. it always turns out to be one, but why do people still not realize that you *cannot* pit science against religion? they are two fundamentally different things that answer fundamentally different questions, so don't try it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah it aint really all that amazing, because the bible uses such a vague language, that it can get away with saying the large volume of stuff that it has without having the risk of it being proven scientifically untrue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It really doesn't use that much vauge language, you just get the impression it does because we always have to counter statements made by people reading it literally, with no regard to genre, meaning, compleatism, writing style, and intended audiance.
Sanity? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's a lot to ask from someone who doesn't respect anyone's beliefs but their own, and who proclaims not to have any set of morality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
(sorry to go off topic)
As far as I know , little to none of the fundamentalist christians respect atheist beliefs , and thoses in power actually pass laws against them !
Remember the christian adage "love the people , hate the sin" ? Ever thought it could be used against christian beliefs as well ? That's exactly what Grendel meant. He has nothing against you , he just hates the christian ideas you're hosting in your brains. As do I. Look how much your beliefs distorted your thought processes already...